Case 4:22-cv-03147-YGR Document 19 Filed 07/12/22 Page 1 of 36
`
`
`
`
`
`COOLEY LLP
`BENJAMIN H. KLEINE (257225)
`(bkleine@cooley.com)
`KELSEY R. SPECTOR (321488)
`(kspector@cooley.com)
`DARINA A. SHTRAKHMAN (324109)
`(dshtrakhman@cooley.com)
`GIA JUNG (340160)
`(gjung@cooley.com)
`3 Embarcadero Center, 20th Floor
`San Francisco, California 94111-4004
`Telephone:
`(415) 693-2000
`Facsimile:
`(415) 693-2222
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`ZOOM VIDEO COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`OAKLAND DIVISION
`
`S. WESTRON and J. MILNE,
`
`Case No. 4:22-cv-03147-YGR
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`DEFENDANT ZOOM VIDEO
`COMMUNICATIONS, INC.’S MOTION TO
`DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
`
`ZOOM VIDEO COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
`a Delaware corporation,
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ZOOM’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
`CASE NO. 4:22-CV-03147-YGR
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-03147-YGR Document 19 Filed 07/12/22 Page 2 of 36
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTIONS AND MOTIONS .................................................................................... 1
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED ............................................................................. 1
`I.
`INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................... 1
`II.
`BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................................... 2
`A.
`Zoom’s Videoconferencing Services. ..................................................................... 2
`B.
`The Zoom Privacy Litigation. ................................................................................. 3
`C.
`Plaintiffs’ Allegations. ............................................................................................ 3
`LEGAL STANDARDS .............................................................................................................. 4
`THE COURT SHOULD STRIKE ALLEGATIONS PLAINTIFFS COPIED FROM ZOOM
`PRIVACY. ............................................................................................................................... 4
`PLAINTIFFS HAVE NOT SHOWN CALIFORNIA LAW OR VENUE IN CALIFORNIA ARE
`APPROPRIATE. ...................................................................................................................... 7
`PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT SHOULD BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM. ........... 8
`A.
`Plaintiffs Fail to Establish that Zoom Harmed Them Personally. .......................... 8
`1.
`Plaintiffs fail to allege harm from the Facebook SDK. ............................... 8
`2.
`Plaintiffs fail to allege harm from purported data sharing with
`Google. ........................................................................................................ 9
`Plaintiffs fail to allege harm from Zoom’s encryption.............................. 10
`3.
`Plaintiffs’ Encryption Allegations Do Not Satisfy Rule 9(b). .............................. 11
`Plaintiffs’ Claims for Invasion of Privacy, Breach of Implied Contract, and
`Breach of the Implied Covenant Are Time-Barred. .............................................. 11
`Plaintiffs Fail to State a Claim for Invasion of Privacy. ....................................... 13
`1.
`Plaintiffs allege no legally protected privacy interest. .............................. 13
`2.
`Plaintiffs fail to show they had a reasonable expectation of privacy. ....... 15
`3.
`Plaintiffs fail to show any serious invasion of privacy. ............................ 15
`Plaintiffs Fail to State a Claim for Breach of Implied Contract. ........................... 16
`1.
`The alleged implied contracts are based on payment to Zoom. ................ 16
`2.
`The Terms foreclose Plaintiffs’ implied contract claim. ........................... 17
`3.
`Plaintiffs fail to allege the elements of an implied contract claim. ........... 18
`a.
`Plaintiffs fail to allege the existence of any implied contract. ...... 18
`b.
`Plaintiffs fail to allege any breach. ................................................ 19
`c.
`Plaintiffs fail to allege damages. ................................................... 20
`Plaintiffs Fail to Allege a Claim for Breach of the Implied Covenant.................. 20
`Plaintiffs Have Not Stated a Claim Under the UCL. ............................................ 21
`1.
`Sonner bars Plaintiffs’ UCL claims. ......................................................... 21
`2.
`Plaintiffs lack standing under the UCL. .................................................... 22
`ZOOM’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
`CASE NO. 4:22-CV-03147-YGR
`
`III.
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`G.
`
`i
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-03147-YGR Document 19 Filed 07/12/22 Page 3 of 36
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiffs have not stated a UCL claim. .................................................... 23
`a.
`Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under the unlawful
`prong. ............................................................................................ 23
`Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under the unfair prong. ...... 24
`b.
`Plaintiffs are not entitled to an injunction. ................................................ 25
`4.
`VII. CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................... 25
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`ZOOM’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
`CASE NO. 4:22-CV-03147-YGR
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-03147-YGR Document 19 Filed 07/12/22 Page 4 of 36
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`Aguilera v. Pirelli Armstrong Tire Corp.,
`223 F.3d 1010 (9th Cir. 2000) ................................................................................................. 20
`
`Allen v. Shutterfly, Inc.,
`2020 WL 5517172 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2020) ....................................................................... 17
`
`Allied Trend Int’l, Ltd. v. Parcel Pending, Inc.,
`2019 WL 4137605 (C.D. Cal. June 3, 2019) .......................................................................... 17
`
`In re Arris Cable Modern Consumer Litig.,
`2018 WL 288085 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2018) ............................................................................. 11
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) .................................................................................................................. 4
`
`Attia v. Google LLC,
`2018 WL 2971049 (N.D. Cal. June 13, 2018) ...................................................................... 5, 7
`
`Baba v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
`2010 WL 2486353 (N.D. Cal. June 16, 2010) ........................................................................ 23
`
`Barrett v. Optimum Nutrition,
`2022 WL 2035959 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2022) ......................................................................... 22
`
`Be In, Inc. v. Google Inc.,
`2013 WL 5568706 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2013) ........................................................................... 18
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) .................................................................................................................. 4
`
`Buena Vista, LLC v. New Res. Bank,
`2010 WL 3448561 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2010) ........................................................................ 24
`
`Careau & Co. v. Sec. Pac. Bus. Credit, Inc.,
`222 Cal. App. 3d 1371 (1990) ................................................................................................. 21
`
`Castagnola v. Hewlett–Packard Co.,
`2012 WL 2159385 (N.D. Cal. June 13, 2012) ........................................................................ 25
`
`Chabner v. United Omaha Life Ins. Co.,
`225 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2000) ................................................................................................. 23
`
`Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc.,
`631 F.3d 939 (9th Cir. 2011) ................................................................................................... 25
`
`Chevron Corp. v. Donziger,
`2013 WL 4536808 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2013) ........................................................................ 15
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`ZOOM’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
`CASE NO. 4:22-CV-03147-YGR
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-03147-YGR Document 19 Filed 07/12/22 Page 5 of 36
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`Christian v. Mattel, Inc.,
`286 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2002) ................................................................................................... 4
`
`Coffee v. Google, LLC,
`2022 WL 94986 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2022) ............................................................................. 22
`
`In re Connetics Corp. Sec. Litig.,
`542 F. Supp. 2d 996 (N.D. Cal. 2008) .............................................................................. 4, 5, 7
`
`Cunha v. IntelliCheck, LLC,
`254 F. Supp. 3d 1124 (N.D. Cal. 2017) .................................................................................. 25
`
`Davis v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A.,
`691 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. 2012) ................................................................................................. 24
`
`Dompatci Mgmt. Sols. v. Vensure Hr, Inc.,
`2020 WL 1169269 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2020) ........................................................................ 17
`
`Elliott v. PubMatic, Inc.,
`2021 WL 3616768 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2021) .......................................................................... 8
`
`Fabian v. LeMahieu,
`2019 WL 4918431 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2019) ........................................................................... 18
`
`In re Facebook Privacy Litig.,
`791 F. Supp. 2d 705 (N.D. Cal. 2011) .................................................................................... 23
`
`Fodor v. AOL Time Warner, Inc.,
`217 F. App’x 622 (9th Cir. 2007) ........................................................................................... 13
`
`Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc.,
`35 Cal. 4th 797 (2005) ............................................................................................................ 12
`
`Fraker v. Bayer Corp.,
`2009 WL 5865687 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2009) ......................................................................... 5, 6
`
`Franckowiak v. Scenario Cockram USA, Inc.,
`2020 WL 9071697 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2020) ........................................................................ 22
`
`Fredenburg v. City of Fremont,
`119 Cal. App. 4th 408 (2004).................................................................................................. 14
`
`Freeman v. ABC Legal Servs., Inc.,
`877 F. Supp. 2d 919 (N.D. Cal. 2012) .................................................................................... 25
`
`Frenzel v. Aliphcom,
`76 F. Supp. 3d 999 (N.D. Cal. 2014) ........................................................................................ 7
`
`Gagnier v. SiteOne Landscape Supply LLC,
`2022 WL 1322294 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2022) ......................................................................... 22
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`ZOOM’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
`CASE NO. 4:22-CV-03147-YGR
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-03147-YGR Document 19 Filed 07/12/22 Page 6 of 36
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`Gardiner v. Walmart Inc.,
`2021 WL 2520103 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2021) .................................................................... 20, 22
`
`Gardner v. Health Net, Inc.,
`2010 WL 11597979 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2010) ...................................................................... 19
`
`In re Google Android Consumer Priv. Litig.,
`2013 WL 1283236 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2013) ........................................................................ 16
`
`In re Google Assistant Privacy Litig.,
`457 F. Supp. 3d 797 (N.D. Cal. 2020) .................................................................................... 16
`
`In re Google Location History Litig.,
`428 F. Supp. 3d 185 (N.D. Cal. 2019) ........................................................................ 13, 14, 15
`
`In re Google, Inc. Privacy Policy Litig.,
`58 F. Supp. 3d 968 (N.D. Cal. 2014) ...................................................................................... 16
`
`Guthrie v. Transamerica Life Ins. Co.,
`561 F. Supp. 3d 869 (N.D. Cal. 2021) .................................................................................... 22
`
`Guzman v. Polaris Indus., Inc.,
`2021 WL 2120454 (C.D. Cal. 2021) ....................................................................................... 22
`
`Hart v. TWC Prod. & Tech. LLC,
`526 F. Supp. 3d 592 (N.D. Cal. 2021) .................................................................................... 11
`
`Harvey v. Bank of Am., N.A.,
`906 F. Supp. 2d 982 (N.D. Cal. 2012) .................................................................................... 24
`
`Haskins v. Symantec Corp.,
`2014 WL 2450996 (N.D. Cal. June 2, 2014) .......................................................................... 18
`
`Hill v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n,
`7 Cal. 4th 1 (1994) ...................................................................................................... 13, 14, 15
`
`Hodges v. Apple Inc.,
`2013 WL 4393545 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2013) ........................................................................ 23
`
`Huluwazu v. Snyder,
`2017 WL 5991865 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2017) .......................................................................... 12
`
`Huynh v. Chase Manhattan Bank,
`465 F.3d 992 (9th Cir. 2006) ................................................................................................... 12
`
`Huynh v. Quora, Inc.,
`2019 WL 11502875 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2019) .......................................................... 16, 18, 20
`
`Huynh v. Quora, Inc.,
`508 F. Supp. 3d 633 (N.D. Cal. 2020) .................................................................................... 21
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`ZOOM’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
`CASE NO. 4:22-CV-03147-YGR
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-03147-YGR Document 19 Filed 07/12/22 Page 7 of 36
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`In re iPhone Application Litig.,
`2011 WL 4403963 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2011) ....................................................................... 23
`
`In re iPhone Application Litig.,
`844 F. Supp. 2d 1040 (N.D. Cal. 2012) .................................................................................. 16
`
`Kalcheim v. Apple, Inc.,
`2017 WL 3443208 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2017) ........................................................................ 21
`
`Klembeck v. GTE Corp.,
`32 F. App’x 410 (9th Cir. 2002) ............................................................................................. 21
`
`Lance Camper Mfg. Corp. v. Republic Indem. Co.,
`44 Cal. App. 4th 194 (1996).................................................................................................... 17
`
`Lever Your Bus. Inc. v. Sacred Hoops & Hardwood, Inc.,
`2020 WL 2465658 (C.D. Cal. May 11, 2020) ........................................................................ 18
`
`In re LinkedIn User Privacy Litig.,
`932 F. Supp. 2d 1089 (N.D. Cal. 2013) .................................................................................. 20
`
`Loder v. City of Glendale,
`14 Cal. 4th 846 (1997) ............................................................................................................ 13
`
`Low v. LinkedIn Corp.,
`900 F. Supp. 2d 1010 (N.D. Cal. 2012) ............................................................................ 13, 23
`
`Loya v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc.,
`583 F.3d 656 (9th Cir. 2009) ..................................................................................................... 7
`
`In re MacBook Keyboard Litig.,
`2020 WL 6047253 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2020) ................................................................... 21, 22
`
`Marcus v. Apple Inc.,
`2015 WL 151489 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2015) ............................................................................. 24
`
`McCoy v. Alphabet, Inc.,
`2021 WL 405816 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2021)............................................................................. 16
`
`McGowan v. Weinstein,
`505 F. Supp. 3d. 1000 (C.D. Cal. 2020).................................................................................. 12
`
`Mish v. TForce Freight, Inc.,
`2021 WL 4592124 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2021) ........................................................................... 22
`
`Modden v. Ticketfly LLC,
`2019 WL 4738237 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 27, 2019) ....................................................................... 14
`
`Nikoopour v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC,
`2018 WL 3007918 (S.D. Cal. June 14, 2018) ......................................................................... 25
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`ZOOM’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
`CASE NO. 4:22-CV-03147-YGR
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-03147-YGR Document 19 Filed 07/12/22 Page 8 of 36
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`O’Connor v. Uber Techs., Inc.,
`58 F. Supp. 3d 989 (N.D. Cal. 2014) ................................................................................ 17, 18
`
`Pac. Bay Recovery, Inc. v. Cal. Physicians’ Servs., Inc.,
`12 Cal. App. 5th 200 (2017).................................................................................................... 19
`
`Pioneer Elecs. (USA), Inc. v. Super. Ct.,
`40 Cal. 4th 360 (2007) ............................................................................................................ 14
`
`Pirozzi v. Apple Inc.,
`913 F. Supp. 2d 840 (N.D. Cal. 2012) .................................................................................... 11
`
`Robinson v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg.,
`2016 WL 6525503 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2016) .......................................................................... 13
`
`Rockridge Trust v. Wells Fargo, N.A.,
`985 F. Supp. 2d 1110 (N.D. Cal. 2013) .................................................................................. 20
`
`Rubio v. Capital One Bank,
`613 F.3d 1195 (9th Cir. 2010) ................................................................................................. 24
`
`Ruiz v. Gap, Inc.,
`540 F. Supp. 2d 1121 (N.D. Cal. 2008) .................................................................................. 23
`
`Schertzer v. Samsonite Co. Stores, LLC,
`2020 WL 4281990 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2020) ......................................................................... 24
`
`Schmitt v. SN Serving Corp.,
`2021 WL 3493754 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2021) .......................................................................... 24
`
`Shin v. Washington Mut. Bank,
`2018 WL 4491185 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2018) ....................................................................... 12
`
`Smith v. Facebook, Inc.,
`262 F. Supp. 3d 943 (N.D. Cal. 2017) ...................................................................................... 9
`
`Snapkeys, Ltd. v. Google LLC,
`442 F. Supp. 3d 1196 (N.D. Cal. 2020) .................................................................................. 21
`
`Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp.,
`971 F.3d 834 (9th Cir. 2020) ............................................................................................. 21, 22
`
`Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors,
`266 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2001) ................................................................................................. 6, 9
`
`Stanford Health Care v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina, Inc.,
`2022 WL 195847 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2022) ........................................................................... 18
`
`Stanford Health Care v. USAble Mutual Ins. Co.,
`548 F. Supp. 3d 909 (N.D. Cal. 2021) .................................................................................... 12
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`ZOOM’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
`CASE NO. 4:22-CV-03147-YGR
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-03147-YGR Document 19 Filed 07/12/22 Page 9 of 36
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`Steckman v. Hart Bewing, Inc.,
`143 F.3d 1293 (9th Cir. 1998) ................................................................................................. 19
`
`Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky,
`586 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2009) ................................................................................................. 25
`
`Thomas v. Baca,
`2005 WL 293022 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2005)............................................................................. 25
`
`Twit, LLC v. Twitter Inc.,
`2018 WL 2431474 (N.D. Cal. May 30, 2018) ........................................................................ 19
`
`United States v. Elias,
`921 F.2d 870 (9th Cir. 1990) ................................................................................................... 22
`
`Velasco v. Americanos USA, LLC,
`2014 WL 266803 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2014) ............................................................................. 8
`
`Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA,
`317 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2003) ................................................................................................. 11
`
`Wal-Noon Corp. v. Hill,
`45 Cal. App. 3d 605 (1975) ..................................................................................................... 17
`
`Warn v. M/Y Maridome,
`169 F.3d 625 (9th Cir. 1999) ..................................................................................................... 8
`
`Washington Mut. Bank, FA v. Super. Ct.,
`24 Cal. 4th 906 (2001) .............................................................................................................. 7
`
`Williams v. Apple, Inc.,
`2020 WL 6743911 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2020) .................................................................. 21, 22
`
`Worldwide Media, Inc. v. Twitter, Inc.,
`2018 WL 5304852 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2018) ......................................................................... 18
`
`In re Yahoo Mail Litig.,
`7 F. Supp. 3d 1016 (N.D. Cal. 2014) ................................................................................ 14, 15
`
`Yari v. Producers Guild of Am., Inc.,
`161 Cal. App. 4th 172 (2008).................................................................................................. 18
`
`Zbitnoff v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC,
`2014 WL 1101161 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2014) ........................................................................ 15
`
`In re Zoom Video Communications, Inc. Privacy Litigation,
`525 F. Supp. 3d 1017 (N.D. Cal. 2021) ........................................................................... passim
`
`In re Zynga Privacy Litig.,
`2011 WL 7479170 (N.D. Cal. June 15, 2011) ........................................................................ 23
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`ZOOM’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
`CASE NO. 4:22-CV-03147-YGR
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-03147-YGR Document 19 Filed 07/12/22 Page 10 of 36
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`Statutes
`
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17204 ................................................................................................... 22
`
`Cal. Code Civ. Proc.
`§ 335.1 ..................................................................................................................................... 12
`§ 339 ........................................................................................................................................ 12
`
`Cal. Pen. Code § 502 ..................................................................................................................... 23
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Cal. Const. ......................................................................................................................... 13, 14, 24
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P.
`9(b) ...................................................................................................................................... 2, 11
`11 ...................................................................................................................................... passim
`12(b)(6) ............................................................................................................................. 1, 4, 7
`12(e) ........................................................................................................................................ 25
`12(f) ....................................................................................................................................... 1, 4
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`
`
`
`
`ix
`
`ZOOM’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
`CASE NO. 4:22-CV-03147-YGR
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-03147-YGR Document 19 Filed 07/12/22 Page 11 of 36
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`NOTICE OF MOTIONS AND MOTIONS
`
`Please take notice that on September 13, 2022, at 2:00 p.m. PDT before the Honorable
`
`Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Courtroom 1 of the United States District Court for the Northern
`
`District of California, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California, 4th Floor, Defendant Zoom Video
`
`Communications (“Zoom”) will and hereby does move the Court pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
`
`Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(f) to dismiss and strike allegations from Plaintiffs’ Complaint (ECF No.
`
`1). These motions are based on this Notice of Motion and Motion, the accompanying Memorandum
`
`of Points and Authorities, the Request for Judicial Notice filed herewith, all pleadings and papers
`
`on file in this matter, and other matters as may be presented to the Court.
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
`
`1.
`
`Whether the Court should strike allegations that Plaintiffs copied from the complaint
`
`in another case and thus dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint for failure to state a claim;
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Whether this Court should dismiss under the doctrine of forum non conveniens; and
`
`Whether Plaintiffs have otherwise stated any claim for relief.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiffs purport to be two foreign citizens who curiously identify themselves in their
`
`Complaint only by their first initial and last name. Their Complaint raises no new claims or
`
`allegations against Zoom, but rather seeks to opportunistically pile on to the settlement in In re
`
`Zoom Video Communications, Inc. Privacy Litigation, Case No. 3:20-cv-02155 (N.D. Cal.) (“Zoom
`
`Privacy”), on behalf of residents of four foreign countries—including one country with which
`
`Plaintiffs do not allege any affiliation. Putting aside the numerous practical and due process
`
`concerns that arise from Plaintiffs’ attempt to litigate on behalf of an exclusively foreign class in a
`
`federal court in California, Plaintiffs’ Complaint fails on the pleadings and should be dismissed.
`
`Specifically, Plaintiffs’ Complaint is a muddled rehash of allegations from Zoom Privacy,
`
`brought by non-US plaintiffs rather than US ones, that fails to state any claim or even a coherent
`
`theory of wrongdoing. Indeed, not only do Plaintiffs fail to adequately plead that they personally
`
`suffered any harm due to challenged conduct, they fail to articulate what exact conduct it is that
`
`they are challenging. This is no surprise. It is clear from their Complaint that neither Plaintiffs nor
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`ZOOM’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
`CASE NO. 4:22-CV-03147-YGR
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-03147-YGR Document 19 Filed 07/12/22 Page 12 of 36
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`their counsel investigated the allegations underlying Zoom Privacy and instead merely regurgitate
`
`scattershot allegations from that litigation, admitting in the process that they copied the work of
`
`counsel in that case and that they did not purchase a Zoom subscription until after that case was
`
`filed. Because copying allegations from another matter does not satisfy Plaintiffs’ counsel’s
`
`obligations under Rule 11(b) to investigate and certify the allegations in a complaint, Plaintiffs’
`
`core factual allegations must be stricken, without which Plaintiffs cannot state any claim.
`
`But even taking Plaintiffs’ allegations as they are, Plaintiffs have no viable cause of action.
`
`First, Plaintiffs have not shown that it is appropriate to litigate this case before this Court under
`
`California law. Second, despite having the benefit of the court’s decision in Zoom Privacy—which
`
`dismissed claims for failure to allege those plaintiffs were personally affected—Plaintiffs here
`
`repeat the same mistakes and fail to allege they were exposed to the conduct they challenge (or
`
`even that the conduct occurred at all). Third, the Court should disregard Plaintiffs’ encryption
`
`allegations, as they do not satisfy Rule 9(b). Fourth, to the extent Plaintiffs’ claims are based on
`
`alleged data sharing with Facebook or Zoom’s encryption, they are time barred. And fifth,
`
`Plaintiffs fail to state any invasion of privacy, implied contract, implied covenant, or UCL claim,
`
`because they fail to allege multiple, necessary elements of each claim.
`
` In sum, the Complaint tries to ride the coattails of Zoom Privacy by substituting foreign
`
`plaintiffs for U.S.-based ones and attempting to relitigate the same issues. This is a waste of scarce
`
`judicial resources. Plaintiffs and their counsel have not alleged any facts to support that they
`
`themselves have claims against Zoom, and their allegations instead establish that they have no
`
`viable claims. Their Complaint accordingly should be rejected in full.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`Zoom’s Videoconferencing Services.
`
`Zoom is a unified communications platform that experienced explosive growth over two
`
`years ago as communities, institutions, and individuals were forced to find new ways to connect
`
`during the COVID-19 pandemic. (Compl. ¶ 28.) As part of this platform, Zoom offers a video
`
`meetings product (“Zoom Meetings”). (Id.) While Zoom Meetings are available to users for free,
`
`Zoom also offers a range of paid subscription products. (Id. ¶¶ 46, 51, 73, 78.) Zoom’s Terms of
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`ZOOM’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
`CASE NO. 4:22-CV-03147-YGR
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-03147-YGR Document 19 Filed 07/12/22 Page 13 of 36
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Service (“Terms”) and Privacy Policy apply to free and paying users alike. (Id. ¶ 112; see also
`
`Declaration of Jacqueline Hill (“Hill Decl.”) ¶ 5, Exs. 1-3.)
`
`B.
`
`The Zoom Privacy Litigation.
`
`In early 2020, a putative class of U.S. users filed suit against Zoom alleging, among other
`
`things, that Zoom “shared Plaintiffs’ [data] with